Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 420 (UTT)

Umesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-09-24

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. The petitioner, by means of present Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 250 of 2014, under Sections 279, 338 IPC, relating to Police Station Kotwali Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. It is an incident in which 4 children sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 3. A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 10933 of 2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Petitioner is present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. H.S. Dhillon. Respondent no. 4, mothers of respondents no. 5, 7 & 8 and father of respondent no. 6 are present in person, duly identified by their counsel Mr. R.K. Lall. They submitted that they do not wish to prosecute the petitioner, in as much as, the dispute between them was resolved with the intervention of few elderly persons of the society. They pray that they may be permitted to compound the offences against the petitioner, the criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be allowed and the proceedings of the aforesaid FIR be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the injured children were provided medical treatment at the cost of petitioner. 4. Offence punishable under Section 338 IPC is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court under the scheme of Section 320 Cr. P.C. Offence under Section 279 IPC is non-compoundable offence, but entails punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- or both. 5. The only question which is left for consideration of this Court is - whether the minor children through their natural guardians should be permitted to compound such offences or not? The permission can be granted to them to compound such offences in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (123) AIC 119 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 6. The permission can be granted to them to compound such offences in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory through Administrator U.T. Chandigarh and others, 2013 (123) AIC 119 and Narendra Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 has observed as below:- “The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint of F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statues like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. Since the injured persons, through their parents, have buried all their differences against the petitioner, therefore, they should be permitted to compound such offences against the petitioner for maintaining peace in the society. 8. Compounding Application is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is allowed and the impugned F.I.R. No. 250 of 2014, under Sections 279, 338 IPC, relating to Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.